Bisexuality: Orientation of Iniquity

One of the claims about bisexual people—more broadly, about anyone who identifies with attraction to more than one gender/sex of people—is that they’re unfaithful, that they can’t maintain a monogamous relationship without cheating with the “other gender”. Read more…

More stories from CMU: the suicidal kind

This is copy/pasted, reprinted, whatever the term is from 

The happy mask: Carnegie Mellon must address stress culture

———

by Katie Chironis

Proof of Jesus

I rescued a lhasa apso/poodle mix.  I was divinely inspired to name him Jesus, and therefore we should all adore His Fuzziness. Some of the images are blurry because Jesus won’t stay still for long enough; he’s a busy guy. Originally posted here. Read more…

Research on political affiliations

28/08/2012 1 comment

It’s a presidential election year in the USA. A ton of research on “how party X thinks” has popped to the top of the news reels, but sadly it’s not very well explained by the media. The following is an analysis of one such HuffingtonPost article on some research that completely missed the conclusions of said research. I’ve translated the science to general English. [This was originally published here]. Read more…

Updates: Shush

04/06/2012 1 comment

As relevant things come to my attention, I’ll post them here. This page may shift around quite a bit.
Read more…

Categories: Updates Tags: , ,

Acknowledging Limitations

This is a conversation I had with a friend following a Facebook conversation. We talked (well, my friend talked and I listened) about the limitations of a justice system that requires proof, given that there are types of crimes which do not have conventional proof.  My commentary is at the bottom.
Read more…

Shush

Edit: Further updates will be posted on this page.
————————————
“Shh. Someone might hear. Don’t talk about that.”

This has several purposes. One is so that people stop asking, “What happened that year, why was it so bad?” Another is because there is no reason to shush this–discussion is even discouraged at the personal level, as if this was some kind of blackmail people would have on me. To demand reporting but hush up conversation of it, to dismiss its effects? No, that’s contradictory. Thus, this is public because things aren’t personally acceptable until the idea that the topic is shameworthy–and therefore useful as blackmail–is removed.

The final purpose is that I want answers.

I should state that I’m obviously going to be discussing topics generally avoided in even personal conversations. How badly do you want to know? Enough to override the conventional social judgment that some things shouldn’t be discussed? That people shouldn’t be allowed to control their own personal information, to decide what to talk about when it’s their own lives they’re discussing? Nobody else is identified…so they’re free to continue interpreting events in whatever manner they have chosen. You can always stop reading, you know…but what if my problem is your problem, what if it’s the same kind of problem someone you care about has? Wouldn’t you want to talk about that, wouldn’t you want to know, so they can get help? So that you could get help?

If you’re in the category of people who asked, you did ask–or do you not really care about the answer? And if you don’t care, why ask such a personal question?

I have a dirty little secret. I know several of you have the same one. Not the same details, but the same type of secret. Listen closely for the sound of silence…->

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.